I was being somewhat cheeky ...

I should nuance the remark.
It goes without reason that a measurement that shows very high amounts of distortion is audible and correlates in a direct way.
THIS I do not doubt nor is it what I meant.

Sure if there is a clear roll-off in the extremes on FR in the considered audible range or if there is a substantial phase shift, ringing, oscilations or what not that can directly relate to what's perceived.

NOT talking about that either AND I am quite sure you know that pretty well.

Nope... What I am talking about is say comparing O2 with Magni (lets leave the obviously different Vali out of it.
Most like the Magni(2) over the O2.
I too like Jason more than Harold  btw. and tend to agree with Jason more than Harold for that matter.
But that's not to the point.

When you take the current 'usual' meaurement suite.
FR, distortion, under load or not, FFT perhaps squarewave, take clipping properties into account and drive both within their limits the O2 outclasses the Magni in the electrical measurements.
Yet..... when we look at subjective reports most feel the Magni sounds better/is preferred.
Likewise ... take the EC and put the measurements next to the O2 than it is obvious MEASUREMENT the O2 is the better one.
Regardless if the measurements of the EC amp being excellent for this type of topology.

Of course I am NOT saying the O2 is the better amp, just that it MEASURES better.
Obviously the EC amps get's lots of appraisal for its SQ where the O2 gets less (well maybe from fanboys or tube haters).

NOT talking about EC amps being 'worse' than Harolds 'standard application' with a twist at all.
Just saying that with the formentioned measurements you cannot conclude that the EC is the better sounding one.
There is NO correlation between the measurements and the perceived SQ.

Likewise take any 'C'Moy' and the UHA6S..
All here agree the Leck is excellent where most C'Moys are said to sound poor.
It's the exact same circuit ?
When you measure them they will measure the same yet they are not considered to sound the same.... why ?
What differs that does NOT show up in the usual measurements ?

Can other 'test signals' be constructed that are closer to music instead of standard sweeps, test tones, noise or whatever.
Signals that can give better insight in linearity or impulse behaviour using sine waves instead of dirac or squarewaves ?
With small different frequencies riding on bigger ones ?
Monotonicity tests but with larger scales ?
A more realsitic dummy load that challenges amps ?

That's what I meant.

Easy. Use a real load like a real HD600 or LCD2 like what Craig does. You can throw a cap and coil into the circuit to simulate the impedance, but that doesn't exactly simulate the non-linear behavior of drivers (if you've seen Klippel results, you would know). It's a good next step. Maybe you can put together a schematic to simulate HD800 (very popular headphone) impedance curve.

The counter EMF is a valid point...
Howz about using the testsignal and also use that as a counter EMF + LCR circuit ?
We don't all have HD800's nor expensive test equipment (an HD600 is no problem though and indeed comparable)
Using real headphones is a good way but with amps in development stage a risky business.

No shit Sherlock. Unfortunately, I don't have all the fucking answers right now. Do you?

If I did ... would I ask... Watson ?

Did you even bother what reading what I first wrote: "We have to start somewhere. Simple is a good place to start."

Yes,
You have been around with measurements and so have others around here.
You say measurements have evolved here.. and that's certainly true so you (all) have been measuring for a while already.
Why 'start' with simple and basics then... we've all been there eons ago, why not raise the bar ?

And yes, I do have some ideas on more evolved measurement methodologies that I am keeping to myself.
However the first step is to get everyone who is doing these organized and in-line to begin with.
It's important to have a strong foundation, consistent results, no?

If you want to make a thread for newbies ... yes.
I thought you were planning to go beyond that.
My mistake.

I didn't call Donald, UB, OJ nor others noobs.

In fact the opposite.

Raising the bar is what you and Craigg as well as others do on a daily basis.
So do countless others.
I figured you guys all knew how to measure and for the 7th time thought you wanted to ge beyond.

Go with the many ideas you already had.... FUTURE measurements.
Exchange ideas on those.
Progress ... and who says I don't have any ideas ?

Didn't think about 'just getting some basics' at all.

Sorry to have angered you.
Wasn't my intention.

I feel we are not trying to discourage the development of new measurements that correlate better with perceived performance (i.e. rising the bar).

It seems to me we just want to have a basic set of measurements across the board, as a starting point, to allow comparative performance evaluations.

If some new measurement comes to mind that shines some light, then by all means it will be commented on and considered for addition. But we probably want to avoid 1,000,000 mind numbing tests that would yield the equivalent of 1 test of information. We probably want to also avoid (for example) having measurements at 10 ohms/1k ohm and then a new set of measurements at 50 ohms and 200 ohms on a different set of equipment and have no certain idea how one compares to the other. Which is the point of this discussion me thinks.

BTW, Harold seems to have done his earnest at this, and seemed to try to standarize 0.4Vrms, 15/150 ohms, 1kHz/20kHz THD, SMPTE, CCIF, Noise, Crosstalk at 15 ohms, and FR (into some load). But he seemed somewhat alone at this, and IMO made some mistakes by introducing 1 Vrms ocationally and sometimes failed on comparatives (too much drama and subjective bias agains this or that due to seeming hard feelings and misunderstandings). His list is also not very complete, and had perhaps way to much faith on his dScope. I feel the idea here is to expand on what its available. But not all in an all-over-the-map manner. Therefore the existence of this discussions.

My mistake Marv,

Seeing that you guys meet and talk about it a lot and you use similar plots, programs, ways of presenting and doing similar measurements just at 'non standardised' levels and loads I assumed you guys already had your measurements ways sorted.

For me doing measurements is a daily thing as well as working with standards.
As well in audio (hobby and used to be work) as well as far outside audio with measuring and interpreting data.

Judging from the measurements I assumed you already had most of it down.

Now I understand why my remarks were interpreted the wrong way and were seen as an attack instead of the (wished for) expansion of tests.